Friday, April 10, 2015

On the Binding of Satan

From the January 2012 E-Block.

**

Revelation 20:1-3 speaks of Satan being bound,
and as a preterist, I regard that binding as currently in force. An
interested reader recently requested an evaluation of an article arguing
against this position, wondering how it might affect my views.

The answer, as it turns out, is that it doesn't, although it does
provide for a certain teaching opportunity. As it turns out, the
article is directed towards a form of amillennialism which does not
apply to my own beliefs, one which sees Revelation as a whole as
describing the whole church age. And so we have then our chief teachable
principle: As I once told a reader, all preterists are amillennial, but
not all amillennialists are preterists. To that extent, the critique is
inapplicable to preterism inasmuch as it seems unaware that there is
more than one way to skin a millennium. a

The critique specifically addresses the idea that Rev. 20:1-3
describes a binding that took place in the first century, and began the
millennial kingdom. In my own view, this was prefaced by the binding of
lesser demonic powers (as reflected in Jesus' ministry, as well as
described in Paul's letters), with Satan himself bound sometime close to
70 AD. Some might place it earlier, around 33 AD (within Jesus'
ministry), but I consider that unjustified, especially in light of 1
Peter 5:8 and other references to Satan still being active. Those that
opt for a binding in 30 AD or so are compelled, as the article notes,
to limit Satan's binding to particular activities (deceiving the nations
in particular), a view I find rather insensible. So as we will see, the
article actually makes the same arguments I would for a 70 binding as
opposed to a 30 binding.

Four points are offered, but the first is delivered against the
broader reading of Revelation as descriptive of the broader history of
the church, and so does not apply to my views. I would note for the
record, however, that the critique again seems to think that there is no
other way to be amillennial than to hold to this historical-perspective
view of Revelation! In any event, the first point is centered on what
is perceived to be the arbitrary treatment of chronology in Revelation
by proponents of this historical-perspective view.

The second point grasps on to a weakness we have already noted --
namely, the historical-perspective view doesn't do real justice to the
language of binding. To limit Satan's binding to not deceiving the
nations fails to fulfill the metaphors used of a chain, an abyss, etc.
Mounce is justly quoted:

The elaborate measures taken to insure his [Satan's] custody
are most easily understood as implying the complete cessation of his
influence on earth (rather than a curbing of his activities).And so...that leaves us with the third point, which is that the
NT depicts Satan as still active and not bound -- as I would agree,
since I date all of the NT prior to 70 AD. We ought to note agreement
with one point:

What then of the amillennial argument that Matthew 12:29
teaches that Jesus bound Satan at His first coming? The answer is that
this verse does not teach that Satan was bound at that time. What Jesus
stated in Matthew 12:29 is that in order for kingdom conditions to exist
on the earth, Satan must first be bound. He did not say that Satan was
bound yet.And we would say, of course, that 70 AD, marking Jesus;
enthronement in heaven, also likewise signified the formal start of his
kingdom.

In the same way, the fourth point argues that Revelation depicts
Satan's activity as ongoing. But again, if Revelation is to be dated
prior to 70, this too is in accord with a preterist eschatology,
although again, the critique shows no awareness of this option.

And so, to answer the reader's query -- when the article closes by saying:

To answer the question posed in the title of this work, "Is
Satan bound today?" The answer from the biblical evidence is clearly,
No.

The answer given, though, presupposes that the kingdom advent
must have either begun in 30 AD, as the critiqued view supposes, or else
has not yet begun as of today. And so, the critique remains without any
bearing on preterist eschatology.

4 comments:

Hey again JP. I was wondering if you could write\already wrote something about Ariansim. Apparently there is a line in john 14:28 that gives credence to the Arians: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I". What do you think of this?

Well, my material at http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.php is my basis, but how is John 14:28 being used here? It doesn't help any particular view, though it does hurt modalism. I can't see any way it would help Arianism.

that line "for the father is greater than I" could be used to justify their christology, from wikipedia: "The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from—God the Father."